• Commonwealth v. Williams

    Publication Date: 2021-02-08
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Lazarus
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0128

    The trial court erred in barring defendant from calling a witness to impeach a commonwealth witnesses' previously-admitted hearsay statement; however, the error was harmless as the evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming by comparison to the error such that it could not have contributed to the guilty verdict. The superior court affirmed defendant's conviction.

  • Hand v. DiMauro

    Publication Date: 2021-02-01
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Transportation
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0022

    Even assuming arguendo that plaintiff's liability expert's opinion involving the "rule of three" as applied to commercial drivers could be deemed novel science, the expert's opinions were sufficiently supported by the evidence of record, including empirical studies and industry research. The court denied defendants' motion to exclude.

  • Adams v. Rising Sun Med. Ctr.

    Publication Date: 2021-01-11
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 21-0002

    The trial court committed reversible error in precluding plaintiff from offering evidence of decedent's statements to medical personnel about her symptoms and family medical history, as such testimony was admissible under the medical treatment hearsay exception in Pa.R.Evid. 803(4), which does not require testimony from a health care provider. The superior court granted plaintiff a new trial.

  • William Penn Sch. Dist. v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Educ.

    Publication Date: 2020-12-07
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Education | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Cohn Jubelirer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1336

    Speaker of the house of representatives and chairman of the house of representatives appropriations committee sought protective orders to prevent petitioners from taking their depositions and court found they could not be required to appear for oral deposition but petitioners could serve written discovery requests. Motion granted in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Kennedy

    Publication Date: 2020-11-23
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Motto
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1175

    The assistant district attorney prosecuting this case against defendant was permitted to authorize one-party consensual interception of a witness's telephone conversations with defendant and employed a meticulous procedure to ensure that the teenage witness voluntarily provided her consent to the interceptions. The court denied in part defendant's omnibus pretrial motion to suppress.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Loomis v. Bomba

    Publication Date: 2020-11-02
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1120

    The court allowed plaintiffs to offer the lay testimony of a witness regarding the speed of a boat involved in an accident under Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 701, which allows a lay witness to offer opinion testimony that is rationally based on that witness's perception, helpful to understanding the witness's testimony and not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. The court denied in part defendants' motion in limine.

  • Nothstein v. USA Cycling

    Publication Date: 2020-11-02
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry: Entertainment and Leisure
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Smith
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1193

    Motion judge properly denied plaintiff's motion to compel the production of names of alleged reporters and victims of sexual abuse because a protective order was appropriate due to the highly sensitive nature of the identities of reporters and alleged victims but erred in allowing the claw-back of a name inadvertently revealed during discovery because the name was not privileged material. Order vacated in part and sustained in part.

  • Commonwealth v. Gross

    Publication Date: 2020-10-26
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge McLaughlin
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1156

    The trial court properly excluded evidence of defendant's pre-arrest breath test results given the unreliable nature of such results and the fact that excluding such evidence did not interfere with defendant's presentation of his voluntary intoxication defense in this first-degree murder case. The superior court affirmed defendant's judgment of sentence.

  • MA v. JH

    Publication Date: 2020-10-26
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge Tira
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1044

    The court found a child was incompetent to testify due to lack of maturity, so the child's hearsay statement could not be admitted into evidence.

  • M.A. v. J.R.H.

    Publication Date: 2020-10-12
    Practice Area: Evidence
    Industry:
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
    Judge: Judge McCoy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 20-1011

    The minor child's statement to her mother, which potentially described an incident of indecent assault by her father, was not admissible under the Tender Years Hearsay Act as there was no evidence that the child was unavailable to testify due to serious emotional distress that would impair her ability to reasonably communicate with the court. The court denied mother's petition.